2D and 3D CT Radiomic Features Performance Comparison in Characterization of Gastric Cancer: A Multi-center Study
October 29, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Lingwei Meng, Di Dong, Xin Chen, Mengjie Fang, Rongpin Wang, Jing Li, Zaiyi Liu, Jie Tian
arXiv ID
2210.16640
Category
eess.IV: Image & Video Processing
Cross-listed
cs.CV,
eess.SP,
q-bio.QM
Citations
89
Venue
IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Objective: Radiomics, an emerging tool for medical image analysis, is potential towards precisely characterizing gastric cancer (GC). Whether using one-slice 2D annotation or whole-volume 3D annotation remains a long-time debate, especially for heterogeneous GC. We comprehensively compared 2D and 3D radiomic features' representation and discrimination capacity regarding GC, via three tasks. Methods: Four-center 539 GC patients were retrospectively enrolled and divided into the training and validation cohorts. From 2D or 3D regions of interest (ROIs) annotated by radiologists, radiomic features were extracted respectively. Feature selection and model construction procedures were customed for each combination of two modalities (2D or 3D) and three tasks. Subsequently, six machine learning models (Model_2D^LNM, Model_3D^LNM; Model_2D^LVI, Model_3D^LVI; Model_2D^pT, Model_3D^pT) were derived and evaluated to reflect modalities' performances in characterizing GC. Furthermore, we performed an auxiliary experiment to assess modalities' performances when resampling spacing is different. Results: Regarding three tasks, the yielded areas under the curve (AUCs) were: Model_2D^LNM's 0.712 (95% confidence interval, 0.613-0.811), Model_3D^LNM's 0.680 (0.584-0.775); Model_2D^LVI's 0.677 (0.595-0.761), Model_3D^LVI's 0.615 (0.528-0.703); Model_2D^pT's 0.840 (0.779-0.901), Model_3D^pT's 0.813 (0.747-0.879). Moreover, the auxiliary experiment indicated that Models_2D are statistically more advantageous than Models3D with different resampling spacings. Conclusion: Models constructed with 2D radiomic features revealed comparable performances with those constructed with 3D features in characterizing GC. Significance: Our work indicated that time-saving 2D annotation would be the better choice in GC, and provided a related reference to further radiomics-based researches.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Image & Video Processing
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
π
π
The Cartographer
Deep Learning for Hyperspectral Image Classification: An Overview
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
U-Net and its variants for medical image segmentation: theory and applications
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Algorithm Unrolling: Interpretable, Efficient Deep Learning for Signal and Image Processing
R.I.P.
π
404 Not Found
Lightweight Image Super-Resolution with Information Multi-distillation Network
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning on Image Denoising: An overview
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted